SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
How Strong is the System?
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 2, 2014 12:36:34 GMT -5
If Betts or Swihart crack an .800 OPS, they're going to be easy four win players. That's an elite prospect, even if they don't project as so-called "middle of the order" hitters. Betts, in particular, is a top-20 or 25 prospect for most evaluators-- I find it hard to call him anything but a truly elite individual prospect. To put #s to this: Using a hard cut-off of 4.0 WAR and starting in 2009, there have been exactly 16 4+ win seasons; 7 of which belong to Mauer and Y. Molina. Matt Wieters, who was a much more highly rated prospect than Swihart has ever been (BA #1 in 2009) has managed exactly 1 4+ win season in his career, and Weiters is an excellent defensive catcher with a career 98 wRC+. In the same timeframe for 2B there have been 25 4+ win seasons; 13 of which belong to Zobrist, Cano and Pedroia. I like both of them, but assuming both go on to have successful careers they'll be lucky to post 4+ wins at some point; though the .800 OPS is probably an accurate estimation for 4+ wins.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 3, 2014 8:24:47 GMT -5
It's harder for catchers because they play a lot fewer games. But hell, Salty had 3.6 last season. It's reasonable to expect Swihart's ceiling to be at least that good.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 3, 2014 16:04:03 GMT -5
It's harder for catchers because they play a lot fewer games. But hell, Salty had 3.6 last season. It's reasonable to expect Swihart's ceiling to be at least that good. In the interest of playing the Devil's Advocate: why? I too think Blake is a hell of a catching prospect, but catchers have the hardest path to success of any position. Defensive metrics for catchers are suspect at best and garbage at worst, so Swihart could merely be an average catcher according to whatever defensive metrics are used. From 2009-2013 there have been 29 catcher seasons of greater than 3 WAR (out of at least 150 possible); of those 29, 4 have occurred during a negative defensive season. All of the seasons that were borderline (<10 def) the catcher needed to post a wRC+ of at least 120, but usually higher than that by a good margin. Before you say "But Swihart is an excellent defensive catcher", here's Middlebrooks defensive scouting report according to this site: In the majors WMB is merely an average defender. The point being that you can't assume defensive metrics will say Swihart is a good enough defender to be a 4+ win player. I personally think that Salty's 2013, 3.6 WAR season is the highest he'll ever reach. It's more reasonable to assume Swihart will be a solid average catcher, but not to think he'll be consistently more than a 2-3 win player.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 3, 2014 16:30:50 GMT -5
Remember, we're talking ceilings here, not reasonable projections. We're also talking a guy who Jim Callis (generally not one for bombastic exaggeration) said had "the Buster Posey starter kit." Maybe we're just hung up about semantics here, but Swihart certainly has a meaningfully non-zero shot of both being an above-average defensive catcher (I'm not sure how one prospect not reaching his defensive projection affects this discussion, by the way) and an above-average hitter (say, somewhere in the 115-120 wRC+ range). That's pretty much a four win player. At the very least, I think you'll have a very hard time finding a single prospect analyst who thinks that Swihart doesn't have an All-Star-caliber ceiling (for instance, SoxProspects has his ceiling as a 7, which is an All-Star), which is what the original conversation was about.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 4, 2014 7:07:27 GMT -5
Jmei there is a an sp report from 2013 that refers to his delivery at times being all arm. There are videos of that too. Obviously the more you use your arm and not the rest of your body to create velocity.
Wasn't doing that the other day though it remains to be seen if he can do that over a long period of time. It's reasonable to surmize that the inconsistency in his command and his past durability problems are caused by the same thing. An inconsistent delivery.
Jimed if you want to change 220 innings to staying in the rotation all year that's fine. But I think you are quibbling. So far he's maxed out at 110 or so and subsequently got hurt.
Darn you say anything negative about a prospect on here you get slammed. I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the durability of a pitcher who needed major surgery without a ton of work.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jun 4, 2014 7:12:29 GMT -5
Make that 170 innings. Same point though.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jun 4, 2014 8:11:40 GMT -5
The way things are going this year in professional baseball, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be concerned about the durability of any pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 4, 2014 22:09:37 GMT -5
By one analysis, the Red Sox farm system has been the most productive in the league in terms of players currently on major-league rosters. If you take every player who has played in the majors this year and assign their value to date to the team that originally drafted them, the Red Sox come out first in the majors: They've been almost as good if you look at 2010-14 rosters:
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 5, 2014 10:25:33 GMT -5
Remember, we're talking ceilings here, not reasonable projections. We're also talking a guy who Jim Callis (generally not one for bombastic exaggeration) said had "the Buster Posey starter kit." Maybe we're just hung up about semantics here, but Swihart certainly has a meaningfully non-zero shot of both being an above-average defensive catcher (I'm not sure how one prospect not reaching his defensive projection affects this discussion, by the way) and an above-average hitter (say, somewhere in the 115-120 wRC+ range). That's pretty much a four win player. At the very least, I think you'll have a very hard time finding a single prospect analyst who thinks that Swihart doesn't have an All-Star-caliber ceiling (for instance, SoxProspects has his ceiling as a 7, which is an All-Star), which is what the original conversation was about. I agree that we're probably arguing semantics, here. I tend to think of ceiling as something more than 1 year, so when Ellsbury puts up a 9.8 WAR season or Salty a 3.6, I think of that as a fluke rather than their true ceilings. Middlebrooks' defense was brought up merely as a "close to home" example of scouting reports not matching ML metrics. Side note, and not direcly addressed to you Jmei: apparently, I'm different than many people on this board. When I see a "for example..." statement I don't look at that as a comment specifically about that player, not to be extrapolated to the general population. Is that how people think? I'm an electrical engineer, so to me dealing in the abstract and theoretical is completely normal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 5, 2014 11:11:08 GMT -5
My point there was that yes, it's not guaranteed that Swihart will be a plus defensive player in the majors just because his scouting reports have been positive. But we're talking about hypothetical ceilings here, and given what we've heard so far about his athleticism and above-average arm, he certainly has the potential to be an above-average defensive catcher. In blunt terms, I'm not sure we can extrapolate from "WMB was not a plus defender" to "Swihart will never be a plus defender."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2014 11:18:13 GMT -5
WMB could still turn out to be a decent 3b. He looked a lot better this year for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 5, 2014 14:00:46 GMT -5
My point there was that yes, it's not guaranteed that Swihart will be a plus defensive player in the majors just because his scouting reports have been positive. But we're talking about hypothetical ceilings here, and given what we've heard so far about his athleticism and above-average arm, he certainly has the potential to be an above-average defensive catcher. In blunt terms, I'm not sure we can extrapolate from "WMB was not a plus defender" to "Swihart will never be a plus defender."This is what I was talking about with not understanding this board sometimes. That isn't close to the point I was making. I said: "MiLB defensive scouting may not translate, here's an example...". That's all, no cause and effect stated, nor was it intended be. My arguments have merely been to temper our expectations on Betts and Swihart reaching a 4+ WAR level. In order to do so, they need to be both positive defenders and above average hitters. We're hopeful that that would be the case, but we thought the same and more of JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2014 14:06:51 GMT -5
My point there was that yes, it's not guaranteed that Swihart will be a plus defensive player in the majors just because his scouting reports have been positive. But we're talking about hypothetical ceilings here, and given what we've heard so far about his athleticism and above-average arm, he certainly has the potential to be an above-average defensive catcher. In blunt terms, I'm not sure we can extrapolate from "WMB was not a plus defender" to "Swihart will never be a plus defender."This is what I was talking about with not understanding this board sometimes. That isn't close to the point I was making. I said: "MiLB defensive scouting may not translate, here's an example...". That's all, no cause and effect stated, nor was it intended be. My arguments have merely been to temper our expectations on Betts and Swihart reaching a 4+ WAR level. In order to do so, they need to be both positive defenders and above average hitters. We're hopeful that that would be the case, but we thought the same and more of JBJ. I don't expect any rookies to have a 4 WAR season. I still think JBJ will reach that though eventually. And MiLB defensive scouting may translate as well, here's an exmple.... One example doesn't disprove scouting being useful. I don't expect any prospects to be 4 WAR players. But I have little hesitation to label ceilings that high or higher.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 5, 2014 14:19:42 GMT -5
My point there was that yes, it's not guaranteed that Swihart will be a plus defensive player in the majors just because his scouting reports have been positive. But we're talking about hypothetical ceilings here, and given what we've heard so far about his athleticism and above-average arm, he certainly has the potential to be an above-average defensive catcher. In blunt terms, I'm not sure we can extrapolate from "WMB was not a plus defender" to "Swihart will never be a plus defender."This is what I was talking about with not understanding this board sometimes. That isn't close to the point I was making. I said: "MiLB defensive scouting may not translate, here's an example...". That's all, no cause and effect stated, nor was it intended be. My arguments have merely been to temper our expectations on Betts and Swihart reaching a 4+ WAR level. In order to do so, they need to be both positive defenders and above average hitters. We're hopeful that that would be the case, but we thought the same and more of JBJ. I think we're still caught up on semantics. I don't expect Betts or Swihart to be 4+ win players, but I think there's a small but significant chance that they can be. Even though Bradley has hit really poorly so far, I still think he has a small but significant chance of getting there, too. That aside, I think the interpretive issue is one of context. In a post in which you make the argument that Swihart has no chance of ever being a four win player ("I personally think that Salty's 2013, 3.6 WAR season is the highest he'll ever reach"), you cited Middlebrooks' defense as an example of when defensive scouting doesn't translate. I assumed you made the latter point in order to support the former point, which is what I objected to. If the two points weren't related, you could have made that more clear. It's like saying "I don't like ice cream. Cold foods give me a toothache." Someone reading would assume that you don't like ice cream because it gives you a toothache.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 5, 2014 15:22:57 GMT -5
Maybe an easier exercise... guys i think can be all-star, or maybe let's say for the semantics police out there, "above average at the position" players: - Betts - Owens - Swihart - Vazquez - Margot - Devers Honorable mentions: Brian Johnson, maybe Trey Ball? I think if you're talking about absolute ceilings, that's just about right, although I don't think vazquez really belongs on there. Ball is kind of an unknown quantity at this stage, which means that you can pretty much dream on his ceiling, but he just might never get past AA. I also think it's always possible that one of Barnes, Ranaudo or webster could develop into that- webster's stuff gives him a really high ceiling, he's just one of those guys who probably won't ever get too close to it. We can always dream though
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jun 5, 2014 15:31:03 GMT -5
Jmei there is a an sp report from 2013 that refers to his delivery at times being all arm. There are videos of that too. Obviously the more you use your arm and not the rest of your body to create velocity. Wasn't doing that the other day though it remains to be seen if he can do that over a long period of time. It's reasonable to surmize that the inconsistency in his command and his past durability problems are caused by the same thing. An inconsistent delivery. Jimed if you want to change 220 innings to staying in the rotation all year that's fine. But I think you are quibbling. So far he's maxed out at 110 or so and subsequently got hurt. Darn you say anything negative about a prospect on here you get slammed. I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the durability of a pitcher who needed major surgery without a ton of work. Well it's a bit of a premature statement to say he's injury prone cause he had tommy john and the sox and dodgers were cautious through the recovery process. He threw 110 innings once, had tommy john and has been working back since then. As far as I know, he hasn't been hurt since, definitely not in a meaningful way. And look at the number of pitchers who have tommy john now: it's being talked about as an epidemic, especially for pitchers who throw in the mid-to-high 90s. Nobody has it twice though, cause it's not really a recurring problem. If you'd questioned his command/control long-term, you probably would've gotten less of a negative response, because that's always been his primary issue as I understood it
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 5, 2014 15:43:35 GMT -5
That aside, I think the interpretive issue is one of context. In a post in which you make the argument that Swihart has no chance of ever being a four win player ("I personally think that Salty's 2013, 3.6 WAR season is the highest he'll ever reach"), you cited Middlebrooks' defense as an example of when defensive scouting doesn't translate. I assumed you made the latter point in order to support the former point, which is what I objected to. If the two points weren't related, you could have made that more clear. The comment about Salty was in response to another poster's statement along the lines of: "Saltalamacchia put up 3.6 WAR therefore anything is possible". My response was standalone and had nothing to do with Swihart. I don't believe that Swihart will never have a 4+ win season. I'm just trying to say that it's not easy to do; especially as a catcher and that we, as a group need to understand that he's not a failure if he doesn't perform that well. The latter point about defense is that in order to be a 4 WAR player Swihart will need to have positive defensive metrics in addition to a very good offensive season. I do see your confusion now. Note to self: respond separately to unique points.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 5, 2014 15:45:37 GMT -5
Meh, so that's where the confusion comes from. Pronouns, man...
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jun 5, 2014 15:51:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jun 13, 2014 16:32:00 GMT -5
Steve Buckley was on CSNNE Sports Sunday last week and he said Theo Epstein believed the Sox should introduce one rookie per year to the team. He then cited Pedroia, Papelbon, Buchholz and Ellsbury as examples. Buckley seemed to imply that Theo wanted one rookie starter, not a mid tier bullpen arm or utility player. I mentioned earlier that old Red Sox owner Haywood Sullivan believed that two per year was appropriate but that was back when the Red Sox usually stayed out of free agency.
Since Theo supervised him, it stands to reason Cherington has similar beliefs, although I don't know.
Since 2008, how has the farm system met Theo's standards? The only guy that clearly meets the standard is Bogaerts. Maybe Doubront, maybe Middlebrooks. Daniel Nava? Well, ok, I guess. But those three at best have been inconsistent and clearly can't be relied upon. Integrating reliable starting rookie players has been a significant problem for the sox. As for prospects that have been traded away, the only one that comes to mind is Rizzo. I believe the mediocrity of the Red Sox farm system over the past five-six years has come home to roost.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jun 13, 2014 18:32:48 GMT -5
Then maybe you should have named the thread 'How Strong Was The System?' Judging the current crop vs. what they've produced since 2008 are two totally separate debates.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 13, 2014 18:52:35 GMT -5
Steve Buckley was on CSNNE Sports Sunday last week and he said Theo Epstein believed the Sox should introduce one rookie per year to the team. He then cited Pedroia, Papelbon, Buchholz and Ellsbury as examples. Buckley seemed to imply that Theo wanted one rookie starter, not a mid tier bullpen arm or utility player. I mentioned earlier that old Red Sox owner Haywood Sullivan believed that two per year was appropriate but that was back when the Red Sox usually stayed out of free agency. Since Theo supervised him, it stands to reason Cherington has similar beliefs, although I don't know. Since 2008, how has the farm system met Theo's standards? The only guy that clearly meets the standard is Bogaerts. Maybe Doubront, maybe Middlebrooks. Daniel Nava? Well, ok, I guess. But those three at best have been inconsistent and clearly can't be relied upon. Integrating reliable starting rookie players has been a significant problem for the sox. As for prospects that have been traded away, the only one that comes to mind is Rizzo. I believe the mediocrity of the Red Sox farm system over the past five-six years has come home to roost. I don't really know what the argument is. Is it that the Red Sox would be better if they'd developed (and not traded away) more better players? Ok... yeah. Is it that the Red Sox can't develop players? They haven't added as many to the team lately, but they did give away Rizzo who's crushing it this year, they did develop Bogearts who's maybe the best young non-Trout player around, Ryan Westmoreland did suffer a life-altering brain injury, Kalish blew up his shoulder and then his other shoulder and then his neck... I could go on but the point there's lot of reasons why they have less homegrown talent on the Red Sox than you might have expected there to be at this point back in '09. I don't think it necessarily speaks to an inability to acquire or develop talent. Like, seriously, what's the point here? The Red Sox aren't good and you're mad about it?
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Jun 13, 2014 20:08:47 GMT -5
Steve Buckley was on CSNNE Sports Sunday last week and he said Theo Epstein believed the Sox should introduce one rookie per year to the team. He then cited Pedroia, Papelbon, Buchholz and Ellsbury as examples. Buckley seemed to imply that Theo wanted one rookie starter, not a mid tier bullpen arm or utility player. I mentioned earlier that old Red Sox owner Haywood Sullivan believed that two per year was appropriate but that was back when the Red Sox usually stayed out of free agency. Since Theo supervised him, it stands to reason Cherington has similar beliefs, although I don't know. Since 2008, how has the farm system met Theo's standards? The only guy that clearly meets the standard is Bogaerts. Maybe Doubront, maybe Middlebrooks. Daniel Nava? Well, ok, I guess. But those three at best have been inconsistent and clearly can't be relied upon. Integrating reliable starting rookie players has been a significant problem for the sox. As for prospects that have been traded away, the only one that comes to mind is Rizzo. I believe the mediocrity of the Red Sox farm system over the past five-six years has come home to roost. This is essentially your same argument as the original but you've slightly lowered the bar to make it sound more reasonable. Whatever Buckshots claims Epstein said is not gospel but attributing unsubstantiated quotes to a well regarded figure is a good way to convince people it is legitimate. Even if it is third hand... Mediocre is average. This suggests developing one new starter per season is above average. Provide a list of above average farm systems producing a new starter EVERY season. One caveat is that these players must be consistent above replacement level starters since no knew legit MLB starter should experience any variation in production as you stated. Otherwise this a baseless argument/point.
|
|
|
Post by oilcansman on Jun 16, 2014 11:36:15 GMT -5
fenwaythehardway:
There is no argument per se. I just added information that sheds some insight on what Theo Epstein expected from the minor league system. I then added an opinion. I am not certainly not mad. Frankly, I think the Red Sox deserve a year "off" to recharge, reassess and reload after an incredible 2013. I am somewhat amused by you though. Did you really write, "Like, seriously"?
bighead:
The problem is you take yourself a bit to seriously. I was just reporting what Steve Buckley said and then offered an opinion. Unlike you, Buckley has actually spoken to Theo and been reporting on the sox for 20 years. You have absolutely no firsthand knowledge of anything involving the the Red Sox minor leagues. In addition, you have zero credentials that suggest you know anything about player development. Why would you run Buckley down when its clear he has far more information than you?
You really need to get off your hands and knees and look at things critically rather than from the perspective of a minor league yahoo. The Red Sox may have a very good farm system- time will tell- but there are serious questions that need to be asked. I am a fan and hope things work out but please look at the current team and explain how such a vaunted player development machine can have such a horrific outfield?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 16, 2014 11:44:45 GMT -5
Can you provide an example of any farm system which has produced one "quality starter" per year since 2008?
|
|
|